Monday, February 25, 2008

Richard Warman Does Not Sleep, Richard Warman Waits

And so the other shoe finally drops on Ezra Levant, with Warman threatening a lawsuit against him. Meanwhile, Ezra's still standing behind his Nazi re those racists posts on Senator Cools, betting that the attribution of the posts to Warman by Ezra will not make it into the final lawsuit, although they figure prominently in this letter to Ezra written by Warman's lawyer..

Not that I would want to help Ezra out, but this point deserves comment:

I started poking around a little bit about those disparaging comments about Sen. Anne Cools, because they’re obviously a source of embarrassment to Warman – he seems to have complained to the National Post when they attributed those words to him. The Post decided to cut bait and move on – they’ve been Canada’s best champions of free speech, so they deserve a little slack for not digging in. But, unless I’ve missed it, in at least two other legal actions – his defamation suit against Free Dominion, and his human rights complaint against Marc Lemire – Warman has conspicuously omitted any reference to their claims that he made the Anne Cools remarks.In the case of Free Dominion, Warman's first complaint was filed on September 20th of 2007, well before the Anne Coosl material surfaced on that forum. I am not a legal expert, but have been informed that it would simply be a matter of broadening the suit to add this particular allegation to the original list of defamatory material. We may see this happen within the next few days or weeks.

In any case, an important development. It will now come to be revealed how much of the Speechynista case against Human Rights Tribunals has been founded upon the word of Nazis.

36 comments:

Vis-a-vis the prospect of 'broadening' -- the decision from Warman's libel case is online here. Paragraphs 72ff allow for findings against defamations that were not complained about in the requisite period.

Note especially paragraph 88, where the period of notice is limited only to 'publication or broadcast' in *Ontario*. The surrounding sections note that the law is not clear whether the internet is either 'publication' or 'broadcast' under terms of the act. But 'in Ontario' is important, and the recent relocation of FD to Panama probably removes the need for notice completely.

I waskind of interested to see that Shaidle and McMillan's blogs (and a couple of others) weren't included in this suit.

Perhaps, as implied by Warren last week, they're waiting for even more stuff to be written over there that gets them into deeper do-do. I'm sure the news of this lawsuit will send them all into rant mode over in the wingnutosphere.

Ezra says he is a defamation lawyer, so I went over to the CanLII site and popped his name into the search engine. Interestingly, his name came up once...as the plaintiff in a defamation suit. There are no reported cases on that site that list him as counsel.

He is soliciting for donations to pay for his legal team, and tells everyone that he has a great case. So I wonder what happens if he loses...will people demand their money back?

Interestingly, his name came up once...as the plaintiff in a defamation suit.

Well, we *could* assume some of his record as a defamation lawyer fell outside the scope of the databases feeding into CanLII, but honestly...do we have to fact check Ezra even when he uses the words "the " and "and?"

Slightly off-topic, but related. While the proto-fascists scream about their free expression rights, CBS affiliates censor the news:

I am now hearing from readers all across Northern Alabama—from Decatur to Huntsville and considerably on down—that a mysterious “service interruption” blocked the broadcast of only the Siegelman segment of 60 Minutes this evening. The broadcaster is Channel 19 WHNT, which serves Northern Alabama and Southern Tennessee. This station was noteworthy for its hostility to Siegelman and support for his Republican adversary. The station ran a trailer stating “We apologize that you missed the first segment of 60 Minutes tonight featuring ‘The Prosecution of Don Siegelman.’ It was a techincal problem with CBS out of New York.” I contacted CBS News in New York and was told that “there is no delicate way to put this: the WHNT claim is not true. There were no transmission difficulties. The problems were peculiar to Channel 19, which had the signal and had functioning transmitters.”

Yeah...the State really concerns me here when it comes to freedom of expression.

TG - my point is that he is soliciting donations on the basis that he has a good case, and tosses in the "I am a defamation lawyer" to bolster that claim.

Now I am NOT a defamation lawyer so I have no idea if he does have a good case, but I question the motives of someone soliciting donations on his own evaluation of his own case.

He is listed on the Law Society of Alberta website as in house counsel for his magazine. He articled with a criminal defence/family law lawyer. Maybe somewhere along the line he became an expert in defamation law, but I know I would not be sending him money without more to support his claim that he has a good case.

The next few months will be highly interesting. Say what you will about Levant but it'll be great theatre. Warman will be exposed fot the POS that he is. As Ezra says, Warman won't be able to hide under his rock any longer. All his manipulations and chicanery will be there for us to see. As to whether or not the Cools episode makes it into the suit remains to be seen. Ezra is betting it won't.

Get a life. It's theatre in service of nothing useful at all. If CanWest had any brains (or was in any way shape or form interested in original production), they'd convince Ezra to star in a reality teevee series where we'd at least be treated to his stupid facial expressions while he's forced to waddle through an obstacle course or maybe eat a bug.

...and we'd all be spared the desperate begging for money, which is becoming almost tragic.

Spin it as you like, Warman struck back on several points, but not on the Anne Cools incident. Any bets on whether he will? I'm willing to wager the price of a good bottle of Scotch that we'll see no Cools-related lawsuit by Warman against Levant, Steyn, Shaidle, Macmillan, or the Free Dominion folk by 1 May 2008.

If it did come to a trial, though, wouldn't balance of probability be the relevant standard on the question who posted the Cools comments?

The ARA. That would be "Anti-Racism Action". As I recall, they were the "violent radicals" who would respond to neo-Nazi aggression with aggression of their own.

I seem to recall that we Canadians responded to Nazi aggression with some of our own for six years starting in 1939. I've never been tempted to call a WWII veteran a "violent radical", but, hey..if it works for you...

I should love to know whether a loathing of neo-Nazis is considered a form of dangerous radicalism by a majority of CPC trousered apes or by merely a pathetic few. Anybody have the numbers on that?

BCL, what the information suggests is that Warmen had the IP a month after the Cools post. Much has been made of the alleged Rogers' habit of switching IPs every few weeks; apparently they didn't here.

I'd say this was closer to pinpointing the suspect's cellphone by GPS fifteen feet away from the body with a recently discharged gun in his hand. In criminal law that might raise reasonable doubt; defamation is a civil matter and balance of probabilities comes into play.

So, of course, do Warman's attempts to suppress the production of the Rogers logs up to and including an invocation of public interest immunity.

I suppose that looks to you like the actions of an innocent man. Alas, without the logs, we may never know for certain.

The thought of Levant in front of a judge is quite entertaining. Will he play the martyr, painting his face blue and screaming "FREEEEEDOOOOMMMM" as the guards roll their eyes and drag him out of court?

How big will his fine for contempt of court be? What's the upper limit? And what new website will he start for his appeal for funds to pay it?

Weblogs are useless, because they only capture the IP address, which as already been shown to have been used by someone other than Warman 3 DAYS after the Cools post. Its not conjecture, it is a fact.

Unless they captured the ethernet frames with the MAC addresses, they don't have any proof. And since Rogers are not providing the matching records from their DHCP server (which would lend credibility to the weblogs). And capturing ethernet packets is not something normally logged unless you are actively packet sniffing, since otherwise all of the MAC information is stripped out of the packet by the network stack as it passes the data up to the application layer.

If you think that Mike Brock's post is proof of anything other than than the webserver can log IP, you are fooling yourself.

Mike, which would explain why Warman was so intent on suppressing the Rogers logs when he thought they existed. I mean the man even tried to invoke the public interest immunity shield.

We are not talking a criminal case here; rather we are talking balance of probabilities. That balance is tilting rather hard - both on IP and other evidence - towards the conclusion that Warman is likely to have been the Anne Cools slime merchant.

No, it is not beyond a reasonable doubt. But it does not have to be. What will be required is a good technical argument and a pattern of behaviour. The pattern is well established, the tech end is firming up nicely.

I can see why you've stopped practicing law. You don't seem to understand the concept of evidence. A "balance of probabilities" is not going to based on the complex speculation/analysis you and your pals have endulged in.

"Firming up nicely"...the imbecile thinks he and his pals are working on a actual case.